From owner-freebsd-current Mon Nov 13 17:23:06 1995 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id RAA10438 for current-outgoing; Mon, 13 Nov 1995 17:23:06 -0800 Received: from rocky.sri.MT.net (rocky.sri.MT.net [204.182.243.10]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id RAA10433 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 1995 17:23:02 -0800 Received: (from nate@localhost) by rocky.sri.MT.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA01060; Mon, 13 Nov 1995 18:25:22 -0700 Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 18:25:22 -0700 From: Nate Williams Message-Id: <199511140125.SAA01060@rocky.sri.MT.net> To: Charles Henrich Cc: nate@rocky.sri.MT.net (Nate Williams), freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ISP state their FreeBSD concerns In-Reply-To: <199511140119.UAA00359@crh.cl.msu.edu> References: <199511140057.RAA00978@rocky.sri.MT.net> <199511140119.UAA00359@crh.cl.msu.edu> Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk Charles Henrich writes: [ Why didn't the 'pause' bug get fixed ] Nate > There are only so many hours in a day, and those 24 were spent Nate > making 2.1 as good as it could get. If this means that the Nate > system still has a 'feature' of pausing under certain conditions Nate > I don't mind it as much as rebooting and/or panicing under more Nate > common scenarios. > I tend to agree with that, however if Im not mistaken (I could be, its > been awhile) Matt provided source patches at the time that fixed the > problems, would it have been that difficult to review the patches and > apply them? Since the VM system is *very* sensitive to even minor modifications, I suspect it would have taken a *very* long to review the patches, apply them to the system, and then test them. Even very simple errors can cause *massive* corruptions, and I'm sure both David and John would rather avoid that for something as critical as the 2.1 release. I think you underestimate the time needed to test something so critical as this. Nate